He was more interested in his poetry, and what Keats was capable of methinks, he recognised his genius while he was still alive, and wanted to gently nurture it in his own style of writing. Shelley never really was a friend of Keats, but he wanted Keats to look up tohim, his was a slightly patronising, avuncular looking-askance-down-his-spectacles interest in Keats.

That's what Ms Gelpi sort of says (politely) but then points out that when he heard John was dying he was genuinely upset.How do we know Shelley was patronising towards John? I know John wasn't keen to make a friend of him, from what evidence we have. Whatever the truth of it he knew John was a genuis allright! Well who wouldn't...even Fanny Brawne , who didn't know that much about poetry could see it. She wrote to his sister that he "was destined for everything great." And here we are nearly 200 years later discussing his greatness!

[quote]Adonais, while no can argue it is not a beautiful poem, is more Shelley's homage to the Greek poet Bion than a true reflection of Keats - the phrase poetic license is just in that case./quote]

I do need to read that fully.

John....you did not live to see-who we are because of what you left,what it is we are in what we make of you.Peter Sanson, 1995.

If you read the letter Shelley sent Keats from Italy and Keats' reply you will get a sense of what I mean. These things I just sense myself from reading biographies of Keats and Shelley too. Shelley may well genuinely have had an interest in cultivating a real friendship, and he was kind to offer Keats a place to stay in Italy, but I just sense he wanted to be a teacher of Keats, and wanted to shape and mould him in his own image.

If you read the letter Shelley sent Keats from Italy and Keats' reply you will get a sense of what I mean.

I've read them a few times and when Shelley gives our John advice, John then gives him advice back I saw it that Shelley meant well but John was politely telling him- "leave off I know how to write my own poems".

These things I just sense myself from reading biographies of Keats and Shelley too. Shelley ma well genuinely have had an interest in cultivating a real friendship, and he was kind to offer Keats a place to stay in Italy, but I just sense he wanted to be a teacher of Keats, and wanted to shape and mould him in his own image.

Well Shelley had no chance- John was too strong a character for that.

John....you did not live to see-who we are because of what you left,what it is we are in what we make of you.Peter Sanson, 1995.

Exactly, that's one reason why he turned him down. Keats would do things his way, or not at all. The sad part of it is, Shelley had no idea how ill Keats really was at that point, and that the trip to Italy was a last resort, a certain death mission of no return. I think Keats was more irked at some of his earlier criticisms of Endymion and his earlier 'Huntian' poems than by Shelley's offer of hospitality.

Saturn wrote:Exactly, that's one reason why he turned him down. Keats would do things his way, or not at all. The sad part of it is, Shelley had no idea how ill Keats really was at that point, and that the trip to Italy was a last resort, a certain death mission of no return. I think Keats was more irked at some of his earlier criticisms of Endymion and his earlier 'Huntian' poems than by Shelley's offer of hospitality.

I didn't get the impression John was irked by the offer- but really he was too ill to be bothered with his company, he was too heartbroken by leaving Fanny to be in the company of someone he didn't know well- Joseph Severn was a friend, who was able to confide in. Ms Gelpi says Shelley was also consumptive- never heard that before.

John....you did not live to see-who we are because of what you left,what it is we are in what we make of you.Peter Sanson, 1995.

Well that has been speculated about before, but Shelley died before any sign of it could be discovered. You're probably right that Keats was just too ill in body and mind at that stage to be bothered with Shelley's offer, and I often wonder what would have happened if he had have taken it, but it was not to be, and I don't think it would have made any difference, Keats was a dead man from the day he coughed up that arterial blood, and maybe even years before when he contracted TB.

Saturn wrote:Well that has been speculated about before, but Shelley died before any sign of it could be discovered. You're probably right that Keats was just too ill in body and mind at that stage to be bothered with Shelley's offer, and I often wonder what would have happened if he had have taken it, but it was not to be, and I don't think it would have made any difference, Keats was a dead man from the day he coughed up that arterial blood, and maybe even years before when he contracted TB.

Ms Gelpi said that Shelley's heart survived his funeral pyre and showed that he had Consumption. I cannot say, I have never read that. She also says that his consumptive symptoms "arrested" once he got to Italy. Well it wouldn't have been for long as nothing could be done in those days. I have read that some herbs and plants can help with it, but I doubt they could cure it. I don't think John was doomed til he got consumption- he was healthy enough before- the tonsilitis might have given him trouble all his life, but there are plants to help kill the infection- maybe they didn't know that though. The plant knowledge seemed to be that of the women in the rural communities.

John....you did not live to see-who we are because of what you left,what it is we are in what we make of you.Peter Sanson, 1995.

Well that's nonsense, a fable; it wasn't actually his heart, was more likely part of his liver that Mary Shelley kept until her death and certainly no autopsy was or could be performed on what remained of Shelley. He was suspected of having consumption while he was in England but 19th century diagnosis of the condition was apt to be erratic and sometimes plain wrong, but there's no way the science of that time could tell from examining a partially burned organ.

Keats was a trained doctor in one of the finest hospitals in the world, tutored by a future physician to the Queen no less and he was in the capital of the world's greatest Empire at the time and he wasn't able to sure himself using herbs and plants, if he knew of these remedies surely he would have tried them. We don't know when he contracted the illness, whether it was as far back as when he was nursing his mother, or when he looked after Tom in his final months, no-one knows, it was fairly well progressed as the autopsy showed his lungs were completely destroyed by the end, he was too far gone for any sustained recovery, wherever he went.

Well that's nonsense, a fable; it wasn't actually his heart, was more likely part of his liver that Mary Shelley kept until her death and certainly no autopsy was or could be performed on what remained of Shelley

.

Just goes to show "scholars" are not always correct. I had never heard this heart/liver story before.

He was suspected of having consumption while he was in England but 19th century diagnosis of the condition was apt to be erratic and sometimes plain wrong, but there's no way the science of that time could tell from examining a partially burned organ.

She mentions some modern doctor- I don't know how he came to that conclusion Maybe the organ had some tubercules in it- you can see that without microscopes.

Keats was a trained doctor in one of the finest hospitals in the world, tutored by a future physician to the Queen no less and he was in the capital of the world's greatest Empire at the time and he wasn't able to sure himself using herbs and plants, if he knew of these remedies surely he would have tried them.

No disrespect to John- he had the best training that the hospital could offer but I was talking about tonsilitis not TB. For throat infections the following can help- myrrh, red sage, thyme, garlic, golden seal, echinacea, raspberry leaves, marshmallow root.Nearly all of them would have been available in a country woman's physic garden.There are some natural antibiotics actually-olive leaves are one. I have used them to cure a tooth infection- my dentist was very suprised it worked.But the herbal knowledge was mostly in the hands of the women in the rural areas who had it passed down generations.But I doubt any natural antibiotics would be strong enough to kill TB.

We don't know when he contracted the illness, whether it was as far back as when he was nursing his mother, or when he looked after Tom in his final months, no-one knows, it was fairly well progressed as the autopsy showed his lungs were completely destroyed by the end, he was too far gone for any sustained recovery, wherever he went.

I don't think TB incubates for that long before it comes out- from what I have rwead about it on medical sites - he would have got it sooner if it was from his mother. Tragically by the time he left for Italy he was far beyond what antibiotics could do. So if they had been invented by then it would have been too late.

John....you did not live to see-who we are because of what you left,what it is we are in what we make of you.Peter Sanson, 1995.

Going back to the discussion about Keats and Shelley...from what I've read, it sounds like there was a little condescension on Shelley's part toward Keats...maybe not a lot, but it was hard for any person in those days not to be a little affected by class prejudices, and even Shelley, in spite of his strong political convictions, may have felt a desire to help the son of a stable-keeper with his poetry. Or, it seems that Keats interpreted it that way. But Shelley was also kind-hearted, and it seems that Keats knew that, too. It sounds like Shelley had a sort of entourage and drew Leigh Hunt into it, and Keats resisted being pulled into it. He was trying so hard to find his own voice and establish himself and closer association with Shelley's group would have made him feel too much like another follower. It also sounds like Keats was put off a little by Shelley's rather wild lifestyle. And at the end, when Shelley invited Keats to stay with him in Italy, Keats not only did not feel particularly close to Shelley, but he knew that staying with him would mean staying in a noisy, crowded, lively, tempestuous household, and he probably just couldn't stand the idea. It was hard for him at that point to be around people.I've read several places that Shelley's funeral byre wasn't burning as strongly as it should, and they had to put more fuel onto it, and that at one point Edward Trelawney, another wild character, snatched Shelley's heart from the half-burned, half-decomposed body and took it later to Mary. I always wondered if that story could be true, because it seems so strange.

It is very true, he wasn't completely burned, they did have to pour more fuel on the fire so to speak, it was a pretty grim ritual. Trelawny was another character, most people know nothing about him but his life was very Walter Mitty-like, he was very much the wannabe hangar-on - a very colourful guy. I recommend David Crane's biography of him 'Byron's Jackal'. A real life Pirate/adventurer literary groupie you could say almost.

Going back to the discussion about Keats and Shelley...from what I've read, it sounds like there was a little condescension on Shelley's part toward Keats...maybe not a lot, but it was hard for any person in those days not to be a little affected by class prejudices, and even Shelley, in spite of his strong political convictions, may have felt a desire to help the son of a stable-keeper with his poetry. Or, it seems that Keats interpreted it that way. But Shelley was also kind-hearted, and it seems that Keats knew that, too.

Yes, it seems like it may have been like that- Mr Shelley was well menaing but came across as condescending. John didn't need any lessons on how to write poetry- he was a natural poet and genius! Perhaps Shelley didn't realise how good John's education was and presumed because of being a stable keeper's son he might be glad of some "help"!

It sounds like Shelley had a sort of entourage and drew Leigh Hunt into it, and Keats resisted being pulled into it. He was trying so hard to find his own voice and establish himself and closer association with Shelley's group would have made him feel too much like another follower. It also sounds like Keats was put off a little by Shelley's rather wild lifestyle.

Yes- I agree with all that. I do wonder if John hadn't been associated with Hunt's circle if his first book would have been recieved better and Endymion not so brutally attacked.John never lived a wild life style but maybe the critics thought he did.

[quote]And at the end, when Shelley invited Keats to stay with him in Italy, Keats not only did not feel particularly close to Shelley, but he knew that staying with him would mean staying in a noisy, crowded, lively, tempestuous household, and he probably just couldn't stand the idea. It was hard for him at that point to be around people.[quote]

Yes- he wrote this many times to his friends in his last few months that being around people he didn't know/know well made him feel suffocated and more anxious.

"I've read several places that Shelley's funeral byre wasn't burning as strongly as it should, and they had to put more fuel onto it, and that at one point Edward Trelawney, another wild character, snatched Shelley's heart from the half-burned, half-decomposed body and took it later to Mary. I always wondered if that story could be true, because it seems so strange."

It is odd- we have that painting in our gallery in my home town.

John....you did not live to see-who we are because of what you left,what it is we are in what we make of you.Peter Sanson, 1995.

harvest wrote:does anyone know where i can get keat's poems on CD? i'd like them to be spoken w/ an english accent if possible.

i bought some discs from ebay, the speaker is very american & it just doesn't sound right lol ~ thanks!

You can find some on Amazon I think and see some on you tube. And of course there is the Bright Star CD in which Ben Whishaw reads Ode to a Nightingale and La Belle Dame sans MerciOut of all the recitals of John's poems I like Ben's best.

John....you did not live to see-who we are because of what you left,what it is we are in what we make of you.Peter Sanson, 1995.